Investors Only?

Jhoney_2

Okay, as you asked - but first an overview.

You are one of rudest posters on this site. You make it your business to be so on every thread, post and forum I have seen you post on.

When you don't like what you read, YOU are abusive. You rarely apologise. 'I did nothing wrong' is your catchphrase when others call you on it.

People rarely report these things (I didn't as I have better things to do), so it gets overlooked again and again.

As an example, you went through my posts (you stated that), found out some vague information about me being a carer and began to mock 'my life' on the thread. Obviously a bit disguised as cowards do, but given that that was your view of my life and that's what you did, demonstrates what an idiot you are.

YOU have this idea that your ideas/thoughts are important, interesting and more important than that of others, when even in with this thread your question is one that most people already know the answer to and is thus distinctly not interesting.

You are very rude to the main contributors here because you envy the esteem/appreciation in which they are held and it has made you bitter.

The so-called 'gap' in M_G's knowledge is the absolute extent of yours.

PS As for abuse - you're more like splinter.

Landofwood

Jhoney wrote: »

Okay, as you asked - but first an overview.

You are one of rudest posters on this site. You make it your business to be so on every thread, post and forum I have seen you post on.

When you don't like what you read, YOU are abusive. You rarely apologise. 'I did nothing wrong' is your catchphrase when others call you on it.

People rarely report these things (I didn't as I have better things to do), so it gets overlooked again and again.

As an example, you went through my posts (you stated that), found out some vague information about me being a carer and began to mock 'my life' on the thread. Obviously a bit disguised as cowards do, but given that that was your view of my life and that's what you did, demonstrates what an idiot you are.

YOU have this idea that your ideas/thoughts are important, interesting and more important than that of others, when even in with this thread your question is one that most people already know the answer to and is thus distinctly not interesting.

You are very rude to the main contributors here because you envy the esteem/appreciation in which they are held and it has made you bitter.

The so-called 'gap' in M_G's knowledge is the absolute extent of yours.

PS As for abuse - you're more like splinter.

No idea what you're talking about

Jhoney_2

Landofwood wrote: »

No idea what you're talking about

Which is what I am saying about you - in a nutshell.

Jhoney_2

Let's have a recap then :-)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5271194

See post 54 for example above.

Jhoney_2

agrinnall wrote: »

You should be on the stage with jokes of that calibre.

I suggested this at post 55.:D

caronoel

Jhoney wrote: »

Which is what I am saying about you - in a nutshell.

Headofwood's posts tend to be either vitriolic or non-sensical, so there is plenty of precedent for this sort of thing

DTDfanBoy

caronoel wrote: »

Headofwood's posts tend to be either vitriolic or non-sensical, so there is plenty of precedent for this sort of thing

On the bright side Headofwood is just the sort of indicator I like, please keep us informed of your plans to enter the rental market HoW, a location would probably be handy for some as well, there's nothing quite like getting out of a hot market just before the guys that 'really' know there stuff enter it

Landofwood

So let's wrap this up with some cliffnotes:

Landofwood wrote: »

What's to stop someone buying the property and then immediately issuing a section 21 to the sitting tenants?

G_M wrote: »

1) If they are 'sitting tenants' they are almost impossible to evict, and cerainly not via a S21

Wikipedia wrote: »

A sitting tenant is a tenant already in occupation of premises, especially when there is a change of owner.

Landofwood wrote: »

There are 2 meanings of sitting tenant. My use was correct.

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Imho it's a little bit churlish to argue semantics with someone who has offered you free advice, perhaps especially so when it is one of the forum's best-informed and most helpful contributors.

Strewth .

Landofwood wrote: »

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if you had politely pointed out "sitting tenant could also mean protected tenant, so we should use a different term to avoid confusion."

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

[Shakes head icon]

G_M was correct, so he did not need correcting. Not correcting you is a cross we have to bear.

caronoel wrote: »

Perhaps you should rename yourself Headofwood

Everone_else wrote: »

a bunch of random off topic attacks.

Good job guys.